MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045276278 · doi:10.3138/cjhs.2020-0019

“Of course we had sex!”: A qualitative exploration of first sex among women who have sex with women

2020· article· en· W3045276278 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Laurence Dion, Marie-Aude Boislard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHuman sexualityAnal sexDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyQualitative researchMen who have sex with menSocial psychologyMedicineGender studiesFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First sex is often defined by first penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) among cisgender heterosexual individuals or first anal intercourse among cisgender men who have sex with men. The importance given to penetration as the marker of the transition to active partnered sexuality (TAPS) has contributed to the invisibility of women who have sex with women’s (WSW) sexualities. Forty-three WSW aged 19–25 years (M = 22.90, SD = 2.17; 84% cisgender) completed a qualitative online survey wherein they described their TAPS. Directed content analysis led to the identification of (1) consensual behavioural markers and non-markers of TAPS and ambiguous behaviours; (2) contextual factors influencing WSW’s understanding of TAPS; and (3) a typical course of TAPS among WSW from initiation to conclusion. Behavioural markers of TAPS include oral sex and manual-genital contact, while fondling, kissing and nudity around a partner constitute non-markers. Indirect genital contact and masturbation bear ambiguous meaning. No behavioural equivalent to PVI emerges. Contextual elements such as the role of partners or the importance given to novel sexual experiences are central to WSW’s interpretations of first sex. The initiation of TAPS includes non-markers such as kissing and progresses to direct genital contact, though reciprocity or penetration are not required. Results show no consensus regarding its conclusion; TAPS is neither contingent on nor concluded by orgasm. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed, along with recommendations for future research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Human SexualitySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207